A UNIFIED

THEORY OF
ETHICS: With
Applications to
Issues
by

Marvin C. Katz, Ph.D

Dedicated

To

Shirley

-1-
Table of Contents Page
Introduction 3

Ethics and Morality 5

The Structure of Conscience 7

Value and its Types 14

How Ethics is Different 17

The Meaning of Good 19

The Essence of Social Ethics 22

Justice and Injustice 23

Goodness and Badness 24

Adding Value – A Central Principle 28

On Motivation 30

Values Richer in Meaning 33

Do the Ends Justify the Means? 36

Trolley Dilemma Revisited 41

How Humans Differ from Animals 48

On Business Ethics 50

The Structure of Integrity 51

End Notes 53

-2-
 INTRODUCTION

This booklet will address questions about morality, as

well as about concepts like good and bad, right and
wrong, justice, moral excellence, viz., character traits or
qualities valued as being good, valued as promoting
individual and social well being. In addition it will
discuss Meta-ethics, and will operate on the premiss
that an understanding of the concepts ‘good’ and ‘bad’
is logically prior to a comprehension of the concepts
‘morally good’ and ‘morally bad’, The essay will also
address Normative Ethics, and will talk about the
practical means of determining a moral course of action.
I will further address Applied Ethics, and indicate how
moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations.

The concepts in this essay are controversial but that

should be no surprise since virtually every proposition
in both philosophy and science is controversial. I invite
readers to be constructive and either build upon this
model for ethics, or offer a superior one and tell exactly
why it is superior to the paradigm offered within these
pages.

As for a discussion as to how moral capacities develop and

as to what their nature is; or a description of what values
people actually abide by; I will leave that to the field of Moral
Psychology. [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology and also
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php for further details and
sources.]

Generally speaking we defer to evolutionary

sociobiology and to evolutionary moral psychology to
explain observed moral preferences and choices.
Whatever facts these disciplines uncover are
automatically embraced by the new paradigm for Ethics

-3-
suggested in this booklet. Moral Psychology is to be
viewed as a subset of the Unified Theory of Ethics –
although, no doubt, the psychologists would say it
ought to be the other way around. They employ
concepts and ideas from moral philosophy as starting
points for their research and experiment design. See
K. A. Appiah, EXPERIMENTS IN ETHICS (Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 2008) for a philosopher’s
argument that experimentation enhances moral
reasoning by supplying a factual basis for some of our
claims and thus providing a more solid foundation.

Foreword

A few people, members of a discussion club, get together to

construct a theory for ethics, relevant to everyday life. They
hold a conference devoted to this purpose. They do work
well together and their attitude is: “We can work it out. It can
be done. We’ll give it our best shot, and others can build on
it and improve it.” What follows is a transcript of the
proceedings.

-4-
A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS: with applications to issues.

Frank: Welcome one and all to our discussion club.

Our topic is Ethics. What shall we mean by that?
Some hold that ethics are an inescapable result of our being
a social species. They are recognition of, and they respect
the fact that, other beings exist and have unique needs,
desires and morals. In short ethics are a way of allowing
people to work together and understand each other for the
purpose of prospering in a social environment.

Ethics has been defined as a concern with values, principles

of conduct, and prescriptions for action. Some believe
Ethics answers the question: ‘How shall I live?’ Others claim
Ethics is about the good life for the good individual. Aristotle
wrote it is about flourishing, which he taught is more than
happiness, but includes it. I propose we find a unified theory
which embraces all those meanings.

George: Some traditional academic schools of thought

emphasize rights and principles which apply universally.
Some emphasize results and consequences, especially
benefits and the happiness of people; while others stress
character, and traits or features which a good character
would possess, which they call ‘virtues’, the opposites of
which they speak of as ‘vices.’ Our unified theory should
include all those perspectives, and then some. And it ought
to clarify some of the key terms of Ethics, such as (moral)
good, right, wrong, ought to, morality, happiness, success,
conscience, hypocrisy, and responsibility.

Ida: I’m glad you mentioned hypocrisy. Avoiding hypocrisy

is vitally important. I’ll tell you what I mean by that. A
hypocrite fails to live up to what he (or she) believes. We
have certain principles, along with concept as to what a

-5-
good, decent person would be. These may be spoken of as
our ideals for ourself. They are our self-ideals. (They’re a
part of our Self-image.) If our behavior, our conduct, fails to
match our self-ideals, we are a hypocrite, we suffer from
hypocrisy.

Larry: Isn’t that a form of immorality?

Ida: Yes, it is.

Larry: So what then is morality?

Kay: Morality is moral value.1 It’s self living up to Self-

image (Self.) Since – as I’ll explain later - valuation is a
matching process, morality is thus a matching process: if
your observable self, your conduct, matches your beliefs,
your ‘Self,’ and if your beliefs are evolving in a more
compassionate, more empathic, more inclusive direction, to
that degree you are moral. Your views regarding how to
enhance the group(s) to which you belong, as well as how to
conduct yourself when you think no one is watching; or, say,
how you would behave if you were invisible, Those views
comprise what the theory refers to as your ‘self-ideals.’

So let us think of “morality” as “self being Self.” Hopefully

your Self has some high ideals within it that your parents or
role models taught you either by their words or – better yet –
by their example. These ideals are your true Self. If your
actuality – your conduct - matches point-for-point your ideal
Self, it is justifiable to say that you are moral (to that extent.)
If a full match, you are a “real person,” you are genuine. If a
partial match, you are to that degree moral. If a very low
match, or none at all, you are a phony, a con-artist, or a
psychopath. You yourself make the judgment. That part of
you which does make such judgments is known as the

-6-
“conscience.” Jerry, I think you have something more to say
on that topic.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSCIENCE

Jerry: Yes, I do. Thanks Kay. What you just said about
degrees of morality that we may possess makes lots of
sense. [A branch of engineering known as Adaptive Signal Processing
and Stochastic Approximation comes in very handy in measuring vague
concepts such as morality and hypocrisy.]

Before I go any further, we should agree to a definition of

“right” and “wrong.” I will define these terms in context, as
follows. It is right to be good and to do good. It is wrong to
be bad and to do bad. Does anyone here have any
objections to those concepts?

Harry: They will work fine, if only we knew what “good”

and “bad” meant. And if, eventually, we could - from
conclusions drawn from the logic - match some real-life
experience, fuzzy as it may be, to those conclusions
which are derived from the theory.

Jerry: Fair enough. Now the question arises: What makes

anything good? And we also should explain ater, How is
bad related to good? The applications to real-life
experience I believe will become apparent as we go along.
What do we mean when we describe something as “good”?

Frank: I can answer that, thanks to the work of a genius

named Robert S. Hartman, who, like Plato, and George
Edward Moore, devoted his life to coming up with an answer.
Hartman succeeded where the others didn’t. We know now
that a good item, let’s call it X, is indeed a good X if it is all
there, in other words, if it meets the standards you set for an
item of that kind. A good chair has everything for which you

-7-
are willing to settle in your mental picture of a chair. If it has
all those features or qualities, you will likely call it “a good
chair.” If it only has some of the qualities you may speak of
it as “a valuable chair” meaning a chair that has some value.

To be judged as a good chair it needs to have most

everything, to fulfill the picture, to be a real example of the
ideal for chairs that the valuer may have in mind. What
applies to chairs, applies to every other concept in the
universe, and to the universe itself. When a thing, situation,
category, or person matches its ideal that the judge may
have for it – matches its meaning2 - s/he will judge it as “a
good one” of its kind. And if it only partially matches, he or
she judges it as at least having some value. Is that clear?

Ida: Having thought about it, it’s clear to me. We say a

map is a good one if it – point-for-point – matches its
territory. You are generalizing this idea to everything we
might prize as good. A good janitor is one who complies
with the details of the job description for a janitor. He (or
she) ‘does his duty.’ The same with a barber, or any other
category. Yet Ethics is concerned with Who is the good
individual? What characteristics would a good person have?
And, indeed, this is a topic which we will investigate more
thoroughly when our guest speaker, Mark, is introduced.

Jerry: Yes, we are coming to that later when Mark makes

his presentation. Let me now talk about the conscience, its
role in our lives, and see if what I say resonates with you.

We need our conscience to remind us what the values are

that we speak of as ‘moral values’ and to prod us to live up
to the best moral values of which we may be aware, such as
the imperative to respect our fellow human beings, and be
decent toward them. The conscience tells us to put our

-8-
highest lights into action; to be true to our principles; to
practice what we preach; to observe the Consistency
Principle (viz., not to have one moral standard for others and
another for ourselves.) When we "know moral values" it is
our conscience which does that knowing.

The conscience includes one's sense of what is right and

wrong. This may be what some philosophers have called
‘basic moral intuitions’. (Who here has never experienced
appreciation, or disgust, or that something was out of place,
ethically speaking?) We recognize our conscience at work
in that nagging feeling that we get about some actions we
took, or some experience in which we participated.
Sometimes it is an unbearable nagging feeling.

When people refer to conscience they often are alluding to

feelings of guilt or angst that accompany certain decisions.
It becomes operative when persons suspect they have done
a wrong. As John Dewey; B. F. Skinner; and Albert Ellis
noted, what is going on here is internal speech: we are
telling ourselves over and over that something is wrong, and
that we might have contributed to this state of affairs. We
might well have made some mistake, and we regret it.

Some folks, confused about morality and ethics, would offer

as a primary example of someone listening to his conscience
and then deadening its voice and rejecting its admonitions,
Mark Twain's Huck Finn. They might phrase it this way: “At
one point in the story as the raft drifts down the Mississippi,
Huck thinks about doing the right thing, turning in Nigger
Jim, who is, after all, a runaway slave. His conscience tells
him to do the right thing. But Huck, lacking the morals of
many of his neighbors, chooses not to inform on Jim.” My
response to anyone who proposes this example framed in
those terms is this: Huck chooses not to inform on Jim, his
dear friend. THAT IS THE RIGHT THING ! I’ll tell you why:

-9-
Huckleberry, at the time, has an educated and sensitive
conscience, one that is awake, not asleep. He was aware
enough to evaluate the correct hierarchy of values, and
conclude that Intrinsic Value trumps Systemic Value. [I’ll
explain this terminology later in our conversation unless one of you
does first.] Huck’s decision likely was intuitive and not
logically reasoned out; but nevertheless it was scientifically
correct.

It was his neighbors and others in the culture in which he

grew up who were ethically ignorant and mistaken !!
To call turning in your friend to a life of slavery "the right
thing", reveals a blindspot in one's objective moral insight, as
I’d be willing to argue at length. Mark Twain knew his Ethics,
and that motivated him to write the book. Some readers
"miss the point" sometimes.

Let us define the term "conscience" as "the sentences that

we say to ourselves about our Self-image." For example:
"I'm not that kind of a girl !" "I don't deserve this treatment."
"Maybe I shouldn't have done that to him the other evening."

Now let us partition it into two divisions: (1) the reflective

conscience; and (2) the directive conscience --the "R" and
the "D." The D-conscience is concerned with avoiding
hypocrisy, with applying in practice one’s ideals.

A thought such as: Do I lead a double life? would be

illustrative of the R-conscience, while a thought such as: Do I
practice what I preach? would be an instance of the D-
conscience in operation. The former reflects upon one's
Self, while the latter not only does that but also directs one to
have his actions congruent with his ideals for a human
being.

- 10 -
Determining, by reflection, who or what you are supposed to
be, preserves your autonomy. Giving yourself direction
insures that you will be conscientious. But many a person
who is very conscientious has an insensitive, or uneducated,
conscience.

Some people have reported to scientists of Ethics (ethicists,

life coaches, and psychotherapists) that although their
conscience bothered them the first time they did something
morally questionable, as they continued the practice
repeatedly, they note that ‘the nagging feeling’ was now
gone; the conscience was now dormant and desensitized.

A person needs a good self-image rather than a poor one.

He needs to know the basic principles of Ethics, the moral
law, so to speak, namely that we are to be nice to each
other, to be inclusive, to seek to negotiate, to be diplomatic
in our dealings with one another rather than abusive and
snobbish and non-empathic. And we need to be real, to be
congruent, that is, to live up to our highest lights, to our fine
impression of ourselves, to express in action our noble
beliefs to an extent where they can even be observably
measured.

A conscience can be asleep, as it is with a psychopath or

sociopath. It can be wide awake and alert as it is with the
Dalai Lama or with my next-door neighbor, a former Iraqi,
now an American citizen, who often behaves like a living
saint -- at least to me. She is kind and is frequently looking
for ways to be of service to my family. She lights up the
lives of the persons with whom she comes into contact.

"A bad conscience is a good conscience" my teacher taught

me. His name was Robert S. Hartman. The "bad" here
means "ethically sensitive." The "good" here means "fully
functional and operative." The first is a moral usage; the

- 11 -
second is an axiological usage. A good conscience is one
that is highly aware of the ethical principles and wants to
implement them, put them into action.

Conclusion: We need our consciences, and we need them to

be operative. When we give it respect, when we listen for it,
our conscience will guide us to the good life.

Edward: Very well said. I would add these remarks to fill

out a picture on this topic:

The roots of the word conscience are “together” and

“knowing.” As you explained, there are two parts to every
conscience: the reflective conscience (which does the
knowing) and the directive conscience (which tells us to get
our act together.) These two parts of ourselves [– reflections
upon our conduct, and our hypocrisy-avoidance – which
directs us to live what we believe, to practice what we
preach --] are brought together by our conscience, provided
it is not “asleep,” not incapacitated.

Our conscience, when it is awake and aware, tells us: Be

yourself. Don’t be a phony. Be real. It tells you to be a co-
knower of yourself: to bring your selves together. You and I,
we have a social (or extrinsic) self, and an inner life (which is
our intrinsic self, our Self.) The conscience says to us: This
is what you must do. You must identify your extrinsic self
with your intrinsic Self, with your humble being.

It informs us that we have a oneness with all living things,

that we can – as many do – vegetate; or we can be a genius
at something …provided we give ourselves to it intensely
and focus on it! We have a great power within; we are not
limited. We have a gift. It is up to us to make use of it.
Those inner resources are what I refer to as a Self.

- 12 -
The roles we play in the socio-economic,
social/psychological, everyday world – e.g., waiter, barber,
teacher, manager, parent, etc. - I refer to as our self. The
self is observable. The inner strengths are often not so
visible – but come to the fore during a crisis.

A genius is in a continual state of crisis, so to speak, in that

s/he gets her power all the time. When asked their secret
great men and women of science, of art, of sports, frequently
respond the same way: “Anyone can do it who doesn’t do
anything else day and night.

“I keep the problem continuously before my eyes” they say –

whether the “problem” is composing new music, hitting a ball
more accurately, finding a new winning strategy, or a new
model of cosmology.

[Let’s here define a “saint” as a “genius at goodness.” Such

a person lives deeply and compassionately. A saint puts his
whole power, all his resources, into his own goodness. He
has an active and sensitive conscience.]

The conscience tells us, as R. S. Hartman explains in this

quote: “you must be a co-knower of your Self in order to be
your Self, i.e., you must identify your extrinsic self with your
intrinsic Self, and at the same time identify your Self with
everyone. Conscience makes you one with everybody.
When you have done something wrong, even though nobody
was there and nobody saw you, afterward you feel guilty and
(feel) as if everybody knows what you have done.”

If we trace our ancestry back far enough and see the

evolution that resulted in the self we have today we may
come to realize that we were once fishes – or at least we
may come to appreciate that we are all cousins, since the
population of our planet was much smaller years ago. When

- 13 -
we come to know ourselves we realize that we are related to
other lives and we are grateful for the contribution they have
made to our own flourishing.

TYPES OF VALUES

Ida:
da: Earlier Frank reminded us what “value” means. He
learned it from Dr. Hartman. As I recall what he taught us,
value is a partial match between a meaning of an item and
the properties or features that this particular item I am now
evaluating or judging has. If it meets or complies with its
standard, or norm – which is its meaning and the name I
have put on it that goes with that meaning – I, the judge, will
call it “a value” or say it is “valuable.” The name sets the
norm. {By the way, optimists are gifted in the art of naming:
they find names to put on things so that the thing turns out to
be “good.” A ‘good slum dwelling’ is a ‘bad house,’ isn’t it?
Well, the optimist would look at this building and refer to it as
“slum”; and then he can call it “a good one.” As a slum it is
good. He or she is always finding things or situations to be
good, but only by putting the right names on them.}

Did you know there are different types of values? Robert S.

Hartman – who developed a discipline now known as Formal
Axiology - value science -- first noticed that there are three
major types, which he defined and explored. They’re basic.
He called them S, E, and I. It’s as important to know your
SEIs as it is to know your ABCs. The letters S, E, and I are
shorthand for Systemic Value, Extrinsic Value, and Intrinsic
Value. Let us explain each in turn.

Here as an illustration of the basic value types I will remind

you what is involved in the process of using a phone. No
one could make a telephone call without there first being
networks and circuits and switchboards and lines; and these

- 14 -
could not exist without first having diagrams and blueprints
for those circuits. These images and codes, these networks
– they all have some system to them. They are “systemic.”
This kind of value is S-value; and here it was applied to
telephoning. S-value is an abbreviation for Systemic Value.

The E-value of a telephone would be the handset into which

you speak, the receiver, the instrument, the phone itself. "E-
value" stands for Extrinsic Value.

The Intrinsic Value (or I-value) of telephoning are the

meanings intended and communicated in the conversation,
the “reaching out and touching someone.”

All of this is involved in the act of telephoning -- all three

dimensions come into play.

Most significant is the final communication which takes

place, the Intrinsic Value. Isn’t that why a person makes a
phone call in the first place – to have that communication, to
– in a sense – commune with the person at the other end of
the line? That conversation or contact is what we value
most.

As I said, there’s now a science of value itself. (‘Science’

here is used in its original sense: ‘a body of knowledge and
analysis.’) The scientists of value logically prove that this
evaluation we just made about telephoning, namely, that the
conversation or communication is valued more than the
instrument employed to make the call, and more than the
network behind it that arranges the transmission of the
signals, that this valuation must be the case: the logic
deduces that I-value always is more relevant, more vital,
than mere E-value or S-value. [The reader will find the
technical details in the end-papers.3 For now it suffices to
note that the formula I>E>S is valid and sound. It

- 15 -
constitutes what may be named, “The Existential Hierarchy
of Values.” It says that life is larger than logic.]

Nick: S, E, and I roughly correspond to the intellectual

values (which are S), the functional values (which are E),
and the spiritual values (the I-values.) Mind, body, and
character are three applications of S, E, and I. There are
other common applications of these dimensions of value. 4
Let’s fill in the picture by giving some further examples of
each of these types.

Jerry: I can give one. Think of a house. We can view it in at

least three ways:

An architect may call the blueprints "the house." On paper,

the house can be said to be "perfect." [That is what a value
scientist will speak of as "The S-Value" of this house. S
stands for Systemic Value.]

Then there is the actual house (with timbers and bricks and
walls and furniture) after it is built. It may be judged "good."
Or “bad” if it has some flaws, if it is less than half a match
with its ‘ideal’ picture, its standard. [This is Extrinsic Value:
E-Value for short.] But there comes a day perhaps when a
"house" becomes a "home". {Picture a hanging on the wall
that says: "Home Sweet Home."} [That is what may be
designated "The Intrinsic Value", or I-Value of that house.]
Now it is "unique." It is “Our lovely home.” (Perfect, Good,
and Unique are three types – or dimensions - of full value )

- 16 -
WHAT DELINEATES THE FIELD OF ETHICS?

Harry: There are three basic ways of studying and talking

about an individual (or a group of them.) Let’s apply the
dimensions of value that we already know. The first is
Anatomy/Physiology. It is concerned with systems of the
body, organ placement, the skeletal and muscle systems
among others. This as the Systemic view.

The next is the social/psychological perspective. This looks

at an individual (or a group of them) in a more meaningful
way. Now we have functions we perform, such as memory,
perception, goal-directed behavior, capacity to align
ourselves in cohort groups, associate with categories or
types, to organize, etc. This view of individuals is the
Extrinsic. It is the everyday, socio-economic, role-playing,
functional, worldly, pragmatic way of looking at us.

Another perspective, and the one we shall focus on during

our project here, is the Intrinsic. When we Intrinsically
value we give our undivided attention to whatever we are
currently valuing; and we come to identify with it; and we
bond with it. We concentrate on it, and get involved with it or
with them. We experience it fully. We find uncountable
meaning there. A continuum is formed: it is impossible to
say where the valuer leaves off and where the item or
person valued begins, so intense is the focus.

For this project, let us define “Ethics” as that discipline which

arises when we Intrinsically-value individuals. We consider
them as “having a story to tell.” We see them as rich in
meaning, as having some depth, as a variety-within-a-unity.

- 17 -
This perspective is distinctly different from the others: here a
person is no longer a thing or a number, or a stereotype, an
object of some prejudice we may have. Now a person is not
just a label or member of some ideological group. The
individual is viewed as a priceless treasure of value, not to
be defiled, as having some dignity.

Frank: Yes, Harry, I think you’re right. I believe that Ethics

is a body of knowledge, just as is Medicine or Musicology. It
is a perspective on human beings, in which they are
regarded in a certain specific way -- namely, as infinitely-
valuable treasures – or if you wish, as of indefinitely-high
value – treasures not to be defiled; as organisms with a wide
range of conceptions, perceptions and experience, capable
of deep feelings and deep thoughts; as creatures having a
story to tell ...if one succeeds in getting them talking about
their life, including their inner-life.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt, does research in Moral Psychology, and

has a Moral Foundations page on the web in which he
describes universal human nature. Whether this nature is
based upon our evolutionary and tribal past, or whether we
have brain modules for the way we behave, or both, is not
the main topic here… but we do tend to behave in certain
ways and to believe certain prevalent ideas. Science
(especially psychotherapy) has shown this. Procrastination,
perfectionism, perversions, fetishisms, over-generalizations
are very common among us human beings.

Furthermore, there are ethical fallacies (errors in thinking,

confusions) that we often commit, fallacies such as racism,
sexism, rankism, ageism, speciesism, regarding persons as
mere things -- and thus it's okay to abuse them, or discard
them -- or, even worse, treating them as numbers -- and
thus it's okay to erase them. Persons are not just things or
numbers. They are much more complex.
- 18 -
If ethics has a purpose, I would say it is for an individual to
integrate his/her outer self with his inner Self; to eventually
become aware that we are all one, in a sense. The purpose is
to match up with the highest ideals for a human being; to
become Cosmic Optimists, to become our humble self, our
compassionate self, to gain in empathy, to become aware of
where our true interests are: to have Enlightened Self-interest,
viz., to know that what helps you, helps me ...if it really helps
you ....and conversely.

To say it another way, our purpose is to create, and add, value.

If we want to gain value in life we will pursue ethics and
morality. The most valuable life is the most meaningful life. We
will not want to just drift along, nor to vegetate; we will want to
create a meaningful life. Finding out how - and doing it - will be
the fulfillment of the purpose. I’ll have more to say about this
later, and will explain in greater detail just how we may truly
add value. Right now, I’d like to introduce a guest speaker.
His name is Mark, and he knows his values.

Mark, I want to welcome you into our group and ask you to
frankly speak your mind. The floor is yours.

THE MEANING OF GOOD

Mark: Follow this reasoning with me, please, and tell

me if it makes sense…..okay? To begin I’ll review: What
makes something good? Then I’ll explore What makes a
person good; but first we have to know what it means to
call an item “good.”

What makes anything ‘good’? Take a car, for example.

You have a picture in your mind as to what features a
car could have; and if this car has all those qualities

- 19 -
you’d likely call it a good one. So a ‘good car’ has
everything a car is supposed to have. Of course,
everyone might have a different picture with different
qualities in mind, but the basic idea is that what makes
anything good is for it to be ‘all there’ under the name
you put on it.

Now that we know what the word “good” means, we can

ask the question about what makes a good person. {I am
well aware that persons are not cars, and that different
criteria apply. Cars are extrinsic values while persons
are intrinsic values -- in Hartman's sense, not Dewey's.}

Who is a good person? Well, it would be someone who

is ‘all there.’ A good person would have all the attributes
that a person ought to have. That person, it is fair to say,
would have moral value, would avoid selfishness. Let’s
describe such a person and see if you would call such
an individual ‘good.’

That person is one who educates himself, or herself, to

do what is truly in his self-interest and who is able to
see that “selfishness” is something distinctly different
than “self-interest.” Allow me to explain. Wisdom is
knowing others and enlightenment is knowing yourself
[The point to notice is that ethics is not just ‘a matter of
opinion,’ and ‘totally subjective,’ as some would try to
tell you. It can be objective and universal.]

As Dr. Stephen Pinker says, “In many areas of life two

parties are objectively better off if they both act in a
non-- selfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You
and I are both better off if we share our surpluses,
rescue each other’s children in danger, and refrain from
shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our
surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown

- 20 -
while we file our nails, or feuding like the Hatfields and
McCoys.”

“Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at

your expense and you played the sucker, but the same
is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these
advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral
observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally,
would have to conclude that the state we should aim for
is the one in which we both are unselfish.” (emphasis
added.)

It’s in the nature of things that if we educate ourselves

enough we come to develop this insight about our true
self-interest. We reach this understanding. Does that
make sense? [Let's not get into a digression here on
Game Theory in Economics. That is artificial: real life is
much more complex than any Game.]

And do you agree with this? {Also a quote from Dr.

Pinker}:

“If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me – to get off my foot,

or tell me the time, or not run me over with your car -- then I can’t do
it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my
right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. I
have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in
kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and
you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am
standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen
to be standing on it.”

That last concept is what we might name “The

Consistency Principle in Ethics.” It means No double
standards…one for us and one for the other guy. Can
you agree with this?

- 21 -
The person who sees his true self-interest knows these
things. For we are all, in this world, just trying to make a
life for ourselves. Referring to those who do know
what’s in their interest, Professor Appiah, put it this
way: “We want to make a life for ourselves.
We recognize that everybody has a life to make and that
we are making our lives together. We recognize value in
our own humanity and in doing so we see it as the same
humanity we find in others. If my humanity matters, so
does yours; if yours doesn’t, neither does mine.

THE ESSENCE OF SOCIAL ETHICS

We stand or fall together.” Can we come together on this?

Do we agree? Isn’t it so that I’m better off if you’re better
off; and you are better off if I am better off? Seeing that
idea is having “enlightened self-interest.” One who
operates on that principle that each of us does better if
we all do better is fulfilling his/her true self-interest.
There is nothing wrong with self-interest -- provided it is
enlightened !

What are the qualities of a good person?

A good person would be one who has everything you

would want a person to have: integrity, authenticity,
responsibility, honesty, empathy, compassion,
kindness, etc. Such an individual would be morally
good. He or she would possess morality. For "morality"
may be defined as: Moral value.
Hence everything known about value would help us
understand morality. .

What is known about value? It is a matter of degree. It

has dimensions (on a spectrum.)2 The word ‘value’

- 22 -
refers to the process, the activity, known as evaluation,
which itself is a matching process.

JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE

one of the sub-topics of Ethics is justice. Let's examine

its opposite for a moment. An injustice is a mismatch
(between someone's happiness and what we take to be
their merit). For example, a crook must not live high
while his victim suffers. In every injustice something is
out of balance.

Justice requires giving others their due.

Reparation is a name for the obligation we have to
compensate others for past wrongs or for a previous
wrongful act. The highest form of justice is
reconciliation or rehabilitation. [Vengeance is the lowest
form.]

To sum it all up, someone who cares, who has self-

respect and enough sense to respect others, would
focus upon the facilitating institutions and social
arrangements so that human beings are not placed in
situations where they will act badly.

For, as Dr. K. A. Appiah, of The Princeton University

Center for Human Values, has written "It's good to feel
compassion; it's better to have no cause to."

Let's all of us, pursuing our real self-interest, and

avoiding selfishness, do what we can to arrange the
circumstances in which our excellences can be elicited -
- the conditions in which we can flourish.

That will be true justice.

- 23 -
Ida: Thank you, Mark. Well said. And I do agree. Let me
phrase it this way. ...We are still fellow-sufferers. We are still
connected in so many ways., connected to one another;
although many of us are still not conscious of that fact. They
lack awareness. At our inner core, we ARE aware of it.
That's why it is to our benefit that we come to know our inner
Self, come to see the interdependence, the connections.

“I’ll do better if you do better,” that is to say, “…if you develop

your gifts and talents.” My obligation to you is to develop
mine -- to get where I’m excellent in some way; and will thus
be able to express my gifts, give them to the world; perhaps
artistically, perhaps in an entertaining way to fascinate and
amuse, or just to use some skill I have to make the world a
better place. And also my obligation is to see that by
arranging conditions that facilitate this I help you have the
opportunity to do the same – to develop your talents and
gifts and get to a point where you would want to give
yourself, to express some responsibility if you care to do so.

GOODNESS AND BADNESS

As you explained earlier, something is "good" if it has it

all. That is, if it has every quality that you suppose
things-of-that-sort to have, you will speak of it as good.
But what if it has less than all? Then it is "valuable."
Then we have other value words, other adjectives, to
describe it. I will define some of them here:

If the item had a few less features we can predict a

person may call it ‘fair’ or ‘pretty good’ or ‘not bad.’ If it
has only half of those you’re looking for, you’d likely
speak of it as ‘average’ or ‘so-so’ or ‘mediocre’. If it had
less than half, we’d call it ‘bad’ or ‘not so good’; but if
- 24 -
lacked one of the features that define what a chair in fact
is, then we will evaluate it as ‘lousy’ or ‘terrible.’ What is
the definition of a ‘chair’? It’s a ‘knee-high structure with
a seat and a back.’ If it was missing by having a big hole
where the seat should be, we might say “it’s simply
awful.” It’s terrible.

(Note, however, that under another name, say, ‘a prop

for a juggler to balance’ it could be ‘good’! So whether
something is ‘bad’ or ‘good’ all depends upon the name
we put on it. A good nag is a bad horse. A bad residence
could be ‘a good slum dwelling.’ The gift of the optimist
is to name things so we can call them “good.”.
Optimism is a wonderful quality to have. It’s an asset.
Pessimism is a lack of vision. It’s a deficit. The
pessimist is out of kilter and is the killer of hope and
encouragement. We need more optimists in this world.
Every true realist has to be part optimist.)

For further clarification on many of these concepts, see

the booklet entitled ETHICS: A College Course, Here, safe
to open, is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

Also, you may want to check out a version of it for the

non-philosopher, for the layman. It is more readable. Its
title is LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. You will find it Here:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

Those two essays give the required background for

comprehending the Unified Theory of Ethics we are
constructing here at this gathering.

Nick: A student of mine once protested, “There are people

who don't want to be good!” I am well-aware of that. Yet,
if someone is aware enough about his own true self-interest
and if he wants to optimize the amount of value in his life -- if
- 25 -
he "likes to shop for value" rather than over-paying -- then he
will listen to the insights of that body of accumulated
knowledge known as Ethics, which tells him how to be
morally healthy.

Kay: It’s all about adding value. It is entirely up to an

individual if he or she wants to be a good person.

Yet it is clear to me that if one aims for that Self that Mark
described,(or some similar high ideal), one will achieve a life
of more value; for value is a function of meaning. The more
valuable life is the more meaningful life. If you want to attain
the most value, this is the way to go: aim to be that ideal
good person. Aspire to it. You may fall short, but you'll be
way ahead. Authentic (whole) persons may today be rare.
But as Spinoza pointed out, the most noble although rare is
worth working for. You feel a real sense of achievement
when you acquire that which is noble and rare.

Nick: Just as one may ignore the principles of how to be

physically healthy, and is free to get sick, one is perfectly
free to ignore all this. Many do, I grant you. They suffer
needless pain, avoidable pain. They do not flourish -- in
Aristotle's sense of the word. If that's the kind of life
someone wants, good luck to him! He is free, free not to
listen to his conscience, not to educate and sensitize it, not
to be rational. Let’s be clear about this: There is no attempt
here to impose upon anyone nor to exercise power. Let us
be aware, however, that some people have, in a sense, “bad
genes. See, for example, Barbara Oakley’s book, EVIL
GENES. (2007)
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1529PSC6Z3M7I/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1529PSC6Z3M7I
She informs us that only two percent of the world’s
population have this personality disorder.

- 26 -
They exhibit immorality. When social deviants and immorally-
acting individuals have broken a good law I, for one, will feel
justice is done when they are quarantined from the rest of society,
i.e., when the law is enforced. Can we all agree on that?

Psychopathy has been detected in children as young as age 4.

They are unfeeling when they cause tears by their actions or when
they torture small animals. We KNOW there are difficult cases in
this world; there’s nothing new about that. The question is how to
handle them; how to re-educate or re-train them so that they are
not a menace to society. Science is constantly discovering new
insights on this. Ethics can incorporate all these advanced
techniques in learning how to be more moral. It's all about Self-
Improvement. As Kay noted, It's about adding value -- in business
and in life.

Ida: The latest inter-cultural research shows that human

nature is as altruistic as it is selfish. The experiments done
by Gintis, et. al. demonstrate this as fact. However, there
are those with bad genes, and there are adults who were not
physically touched, or caressed enough as babies, and thus
are immature or psychologically crippled. We live in a world
with some difficult people and it would be best if we learn
how to cope with them without betraying our own
authenticity, without lowering ourselves to their level.

- 27 -
ADDING VALUE – A CENTRAL PRINCIPLE

Harry: Frank mentioned in his presentation, - and Ida, Kay,

and Nick spoke of it as well – the concept that ethical
conduct serves to add value to situations. I should like to
expand upon that theme by offering these perspectives.

An ethical objective is to add value to the situations in which

one finds himself or herself.

To live smoothly within the various groups (with which we find

ourselves involved) we behave civilly and show courtesy and
manners. This is one of the ways we add value to social
interactions.

Some writers here have argued that that is all there is to

ethics – that all ethics is Social Ethics. Some who have
reflected on the concerns of moral philosophy insist that how
we express respect in the groups to which we belong – the
degree of closeness we have to our families and our other
social circles – is the proper study for ethics. This defines the
field of Social Ethics. It emphasizes the human capacity to
put oneself ‘in another individual’s shoes’; to practice some
version of the “Golden Rule.”

An individual’s decision whether to take recreational drugs, or

to mutilate himself, or to be a grumpy cynic, or to be a cheater
and conniver; or – in contrast – whether to eat so as to stay
healthy - are ethical concerns as well. This is the field of
Individual Ethics. It involves questions we may ask ourselves,
such as: Shall I make self-improvement a goal? Shall I aim for
(moral) goodness? Do I want to take on responsibility? Do I
care if others endure needless suffering? And if so, can I, or
will I, intervene in some way to help relieve that suffering? In
other words, Do I aspire to add value?

- 28 -
This area of ethics – Individual Ethics – logically takes priority
over Social Ethics because if one is a sadist, a psychopath
with some violent tendencies, or if a person takes glee in
cruelty, this will definitely affect how a person will behave in a
group.

Frank: In the layman’s mind, ethics has to do with conduct

in one’s profession or associations, and – many believe
mistakenly – ethical standards are restrictive of a person’s
natural tendencies. They claim it is human nature to cheat,
steal, cut corners, bait-and-switch in one’s business dealings,
and get away with as little output for as much return as he
can. Some believe it is human nature to be manipulative,
because they see it all around them every day. [The latter,
however, is a narrow perspective: rural villagers in Africa, say,
or in China, are communal-minded and live in a kind of loving,
sharing harmony. Once they migrate to a city they acquire
greed and insecurity.] Ethical standards are not restrictive;
they are liberating. And human nature is not necessarily
manipulative.

I propose that adding value be the one norm, or operating

principle that we need to have to incentivize and to motivate
us in the ethical direction.

{It already is an imperative in business among the

enlightened. When applied to a subset of Ethics known as
Business Ethics it implies that an owner, or a proprietor, or a
CEO, would give equal attention to profits, to customers, to
employees and staff, to the community where it does
business, and to the environment. Consideration to “the
bottom line”, to profits, enables the firm to stay in business;
consideration to the other factors enables it to be fully
ethical. And yes, I know there are differences between business and
the moral life of individuals: I am not conflating the two.}

- 29 -
ON MOTIVATION

Kay: With regard to motivation, self-definition plays a large

role: If one defines himself as one who loves or enjoys x,
then it will be so much easier to accomplish x than if one
does not. “x” here may be, for example, exercise; or doing
math; or complimenting others sincerely at every
opportunity. All of these may be good ways of adding value.
Your Self-development can add value by your becoming a
role model for other members of society. The more you add
value to yourself, the more you can contribute.

This has been just a glimpse at some of the applications of

what may turn out to be a central principle for Ethics. The
notion of adding value may be just what we have been
searching for, as we seek to know the truth in this field of
study known as Ethics.

Carl walks in on the discussion, and is greeted by the entire

company, by the other searchers for truth. He speaks up.

Carl:: I would like to call everyone's attention to this op-ed editorial

that came out in April of 2009 by David Brooks. It is controversial but
it makes some good points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=1&scp=1sq=The%20end%2
0of%20Philos oph%20by%20David%20Brooks&st=cse
I would particularly stress some of the cogent ideas expressed in his
final summary paragraphs, such as the following:

The scientists who study morality, he tells us, referring to those who
work in the specialty known as Moral Psychology, are "good at
explaining how people make judgments about harm and fairness, but
they still struggle to explain the feelings of awe, transcendence,
patriotism, joy and self-sacrifice, which are not ancillary to most
people’s moral experiences, but central."

- 30 -
As you know, I recently proposed an evolutionary basis for our
altruistic impulses and our co-operative behavior. Brooks warns us
however:

"The evolutionary approach also leads many scientists to

neglect the concept of individual responsibility and makes it
hard for them to appreciate that most people struggle
toward goodness, not as a means, but as an end in itself."

The paradigm offered in the text on ethics which Dr. Katz entitled
the COLLEGE COURSE, does not neglect individual responsibility
but instead emphasizes it, as seen in the novel definition of
"morality" presented there. It indicates that we should commit
ourselves to improving our self-concept by reaching for higher self-
ideals, and actualizing them by aiming to live up to them, as a
personal challenge and as a goal we seriously intend to attain. This
can be a joyous endeavor, a ‘fun-project’.

I thoroughly agree with Brooks' observation that we make snap

moral judgments, that we live by our intuitions, that our factual
conclusions are permeated by values, that we evaluate while we are
perceiving the world, that we are ruled by our emotions of awe,
beauty, appreciation; yes, and disgust. Reason and emotion are
inextricable.

We need a shake-up in ethics because the majority in the world are

very unclear about their values, very confused -- as evidenced by
the moral muck and rampant corruption we find all around. [Anyone
of us could easily give examples of this.]

There will be no shake-up (let alone revolution) in ethics unless

emotion drives the reasoning, just as well as vice versa. For, as I
have said before, emotion is to beliefs as the weather is to the
barometer readings. But beliefs can be specified and managed
whereas we can't define, explain, nor predict emotions: we can
analyze propositions; but we know next to nothing about emotions.
No psychologist of which I am aware has a comprehensive theory of
emotions which I find emotionally-satisfying (i.e., persuasive to me.)

- 31 -
Nick: Thank you, Carl, for reminding us of some relevant
points. I would add this contribution to what Harry told us
about adding value. We seek a central principle that unifies
the field, such as, for example, what some have called “the
double win.” They have recommended win/win relationships
and the mutual benefit that follows. To seek such relations is
still another way of adding value. And let us not forget the
importance of differentiation, especially - when applied to
ethics - of self-differentiation. As we differentiate ourselves,
define how we can make a difference in this world, so that
we did not live in vain, we go through stages.

We may speak of them as the Four Cs of Ethics, even

though they do not all begin with a C. They are: Know
yourself. Choose yourself. Create yourself. Give yourself.
The first comes from what the Oracle at Delphi told
Socrates. The next was stressed highly by Soren
Kierkegaard. As we develop our gifts and talents we are
creating ourself. Then, as Carl R. Rogers, the renowned
therapist pointed out, as we heal, as we grow, as we reach
maturity, (and this can occur at any age) we tend to give
ourself, we ask to take on responsibility. Each of these Cs
could constitute a book in itself. I just summarized them, in
passing here.

Ed: How does one achieve this added value? One must be
aware of him/herself and be detached from the negative
thoughts, impulses, and negative conditioning from external
sources. Therefore, one needs to know how to work on
him/herself.

Maybe the next step is to put together some ways in which

people can practice working on their being so they can
achieve what Harry and Nick have so beautifully expressed.

- 32 -
Frank: That is a task for another gathering of our group
once it expands. We cannot figure out everything ourselves.

Larry: Yes. I agree. Self-improvement is a way of

adding value to the world. There are many sites on the
internet which have something to say in this regard.
They give free lessons on how it is done. And we
should also be cognizant of the perspective of Steven H.
Strogatz. See his book, SYNC: The Emerging Science of
Spontaneous Order. This will broaden our awareness. It is
a good read!

Kay: I discussed the concept of adding value with my

friend, Jim, the other day, and he remarked: “To
complete this analysis of value-added ethics, it seems two
questions suggest themselves.

First, how is the value-to-be-added determined?

Second, in the case of general values (say of the group or
humanity as a whole) conflicting with personal values, how
and who determines which set of values wins?”

SOME VALUES RICHER IN MEANING THAN OTHERS

I replied by saying: Thank you, Jim, for the good

questions.

The more people know about values and the “existential

hierarchy of values” that is generated by Formal
Axiology the easier it will be for them to determine
which is the most appropriate value to add to the
specific situation. That hierarchy is summed up by the
formula: I > E >S. Intrinsic Value trumps Extrinsic Value
which, in turn, trumps Systemic Value. We can't go
wrong if we bring love into the situation, if we affirm life,
- 33 -
or joy, or create a random act of beauty or kindness.

The hierarchy implies that all the theories and

ideologies in the world aren't worth as much as one
material thing; and all the things in the world aren't
worth as much as one individual life. Some of the
Intrinsic values are mentioned in this list: integrity,
liberty, fellowship, community, responsibility,
involvement, empathy, etc.
For details, see the paper The Measurement of Value by
R. S. Hartman. Here is a link to it: The Measurement of Value

You ask about the value to be added. If when you enter a

room you radiate a healing blessing, and people there
feel like a plant that has been watered, you are adding
the right value.

You further inquire: "...in the case of general values (say

of the group or humanity as a whole) conflicting with
personal values, how and who determines which set of
values wins?"

Before I can answer that, Jim, beyond what has been

said above, it would help to know what specific conflict
you have in mind. I need a specific case to analyze. I
believe I have already given you the guideline clues so
that you can answer this yourself. There are though two
books I could recommend:

R. M. Kidder, HOW GOOD PEOLE MAKE TOUGH CHOICES: Resolving the

dilemmas of ethical living (NY:Simon & Schuster Fireside Books, 1995).
See especially pp. 220-221.
Wayne W. Dyer, THERE'S A SPIRITUAL SOLUTION TO EVERY PROBLEM
(NY: HarperCollins, 2001)

Jerry: The question was raised: "Just how do we add

value?" I would reply: It is by fulfilling your purpose:

- 34 -
The meaning or purpose of life is to express love, truth,
beauty, creativity, and individuality (and the other Intrinsic
Values.).

I am well aware that there are nihilists among us who claim

that (to them) life has no meaning. Perhaps someone can
suggest a better meaning of human life than the one I
offered here. I'd be very happy to consider it.

Mark: I might add that the more we learn about the human
mind and the rest of human nature the easier it will be to live
the really good life; and eventually there will be more of us
who work for peace and harmony and wish to put an end to
violence -- using strictly nonviolent means to do so. [For we
will realize that if we employ violence to "put an end to
violence" it won't really happen.]

George: What you just mentioned introduces us to an

analysis of the relationship of ends to means. Let us now
give it some deep thought. Okay?

- 35 -
DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

Harry: On the topic of The MEANS-ENDS relationship, I

may be wrong, but it seem to me that ends are related to
means used: if you want peace, use peaceful means. If love
is your end (your goal), use loving means to get to it. If you
want stability in a marriage, or in the world, then stable
means are required to reach your end-in-view.

Isn't it reasonable to be aware that chaotic or destructive

means will not in themselves result in a stable, sustainable
state of affairs. A state of justice is a state of balance; to be
in balance we cannot use means that are out of balance.

That to me is the most basic point to learn about The

Means/Ends relationship. The means ought to be compatible
with the ends desired.

(For example, Woodrow Wilson said that World War I would

be "a war to end all war.") You don't end war by waging it.

Ida: It works for me !

Jerry: Furthermore, what is an 'end' today was a 'means'

yesterday. For example, an engagement (getting engaged)
is an end to dating around, and is a means to a marriage. It
is both, a means, and an end. Doesn't this imply that means
must be compatible with ends?

That's why the means/ends relationship is important. What

do the rest of you think about this crucial ethical principle?
[For a more detailed and thorough argument on the topic, see Chapter 12 of
the manual, a link to which is offered HERE: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3 ]

Nick has invited his friend, Jeb, to sit in with the research group and if he
has something to say, to speak up.

- 36 -
Jeb: But we cannot deny that the ends can justify the means;
that doing things that would be wrong otherwise can be right
because of the end result!

A n example that supports what you say is this: lets say we had a
terrorist in custody, and were debating whether it was ethical to
torture him in order to gain information about follow up terrorist
attacks so we could save thousands of innocent lives. One could
use a narrow minded "the ends justify the means" argument to
say so.
Now in actuality, it turns out the terrorist is just some random
guy we picked up in Iraq, he doesn't know anything, and that
torture is not a reliable method. So this example shows the
danger of using "the ends justify the means" reasoning without
thinking it through.
Another modern example might be wiretapping. The ends
(catching criminals) are used to justify the means (invading
privacy). And indeed, as you would fear from the sound of your
OP, the government attempts to use "ends justify the means"
reasoning to wiretap to an excessive degree. But the way you have
phrased it you go too far, and argue against wiretapping
completely. You said "you don't end war by waging it". So then,
we can't catch criminals by having cops engage in criminal
activities (undercover)? We can't use lethal force to capture a
serial killer?

Jerry: I thank you for the two examples which you offer.
They do indeed support my argument. But you spoil it (and
do not offer any good examples to support your ethical
fallacy) when you state, in your first sentence: "But we
cannot deny that the ends can justify the means; that doing
things that would be wrong otherwise can be right because
of the end result.” I can deny it, and I do deny it, for I
detect that it is an ethical mistake.

- 37 -
 This was the same ideology the Soviet Union was said to
uphold to justify what they did with their invasions, gulags,
cultural suppressions, and denial of civil liberties to the
Ukrainians, Latvians, Hungarians, etc.

This is also used by every empire (including the USA) to

justify every preemptive occupation of another nation by
armed forces; and every other morally-questionable conduct.
"We are doing it in the name of a noble end-in-view --- so it's
okay" is the gist of the propaganda and talking points used to
make it sound good. The fine-sounding end may be
Freedom; Democracy; Socialism; To End All War; Safety
and Security; etc., etc.

Now as to your wire-tapping example, here we have to

weigh the value to us of 'catching criminals' versus 'privacy.'
We have to conclude that these days there is no longer any
such thing as privacy. So my position is not to rule out wire-
tapping and also undercover police operations and even
some sting-operations ...as long as they are accompanied
with safeguards, supervision by Congress or other legislative
bodies, open reporting, and enforced regulations governing
them. An undercover cop who harasses someone, or arrests
someone, and does not identify himself as a cop, is
behaving immorally. Yet this happens every day; and it is
NOT right.

My clearly-stated position is: THE USE OF IMMORAL

MEANS TO GET TO NOBLE ENDS IS NOT JUSTIFIED.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS IF THE
MEANS ARE MORALLY-QUESTIONABLE. Why?
Because in an important sense means are ends; and
ends are means. Thus they must be compatible with one
another. If an ethical end is desired, ethical means are to
be used to get there !

- 38 -
Ken: Whether the ends justify the means always depends
on what is the end, and what is the means. There can be no
general answer to the question. And, what are ends in one
context, may be the means in a different context. I work
(means) to make money (end). But money (means) is
earned to purchase a car (end). And, the car (means) is
purchased to get to the job (end) (means) to make money.
Ends and means are always relative to one another. Nothing
is an absolute means, nor an absolute end.

Jerry: Are you claiming, Ken, that it is all relative to

context? If so, that’s a rationalization for immoral activity: it
gives us an excuse if we want to cheat. "I want this item very
badly, so I will shop-lift it After all, I'm poorer than the owner
of this store."

Ken rejoins: “All I said is that whether the ends are worth
the means depends on what are the ends, and on what are
the means in a particular case. Don't you agree with that? I
don't see how that would justify shop-lifting. Do you?”

Jerry: True, what you said does not justify shop-lifting. I

was illustrating the concept 'rationalization.' I'm sorry if this
caused a misunderstanding.

Yes, it is important to consider what are the ends? And what

are the means? Much depends upon that. It is good to see
things in context. I agree.

My prescription, derived from the unified theory of Ethics -

that ends depend upon means used, and result from the
means used - still stands. "Peace is the step on the road to
peace." So if we say that world peace is our end-in-view, it is
essential that we use peaceful means to get there. Why is

- 39 -
this so hard for some people to understand?!

In general, it is dangerous to live by the concept "The end

justifies the means." It permits all kinds of unethical behavior
to slip by.

Kay: It is a fact that people today do things that are counter to

their own professed interests. The job of a good theory of Ethics
would be to show them how to do effectively what is in harmony
with their interests.
I am often asked, “ Do you think a pacifist approach would
have worked in Word War II to achieve a desirable result
against Hitler, once he rose to power?” I recommend, as an
alternative, that we be alert enough to catch the rise of a
Hitler and his movement, his following, early, and do
something to head it off before it becomes such a menace
to the world..
It's possible to achieve a just and fair society without literally
fighting, without employing violence. How many consider
that possibility in a serious manner? We need to be smart,
not tough. We need cleverness and skill more than we need
militant warriors. We ought to set out to "win hearts and
minds," to persuade, to set a shining example (in our own
nation) of how to flourish, in Aristotle's sense of the term.

We need to have a focused purpose to teach the world what

Ethics is all about, and why they should soon adopt it. First,
though, we have to understand the principles ourselves.

Harry: Thank you, Kay, for those cogent words. In summary, it

seems to me obvious that one should select appropriate means
to achieve one's ends. And I am not saying that the means
need to resemble the ends, but rather that compatibility is
required. After all, it is a matter of perspective whether a specific
event is labeled as a means, or as an end. The main point of

- 40 -
which we should be aware is that if an ethical end-in-view is
chosen as a goal, immoral means will very likely not get us
there. You can probably think of some examples.

Jerry: I can. For example, if Freedom is a goal for our nation,

the denial of freedom to a cohort of our citizens will not get us to
our goal. (While not denying that we should incarcerate perpetrators of
criminal acts, ideally we should rehabilitate - or at least strive to do so -
those we arrest, rather than just locking them up and warehousing them.
It is stupid to imprison people who are later released and who have been
made worse for the experience - which is often the case now.) One
should not violate the Bill of Rights in order to defend the Bill of
Rights.

For another example, if a man wants an honest relationship with

his wife, and knows that she will not accept philandering, then
having an affair would not be compatible with what he wants.

THE TROLLEY DILEMMA REVISITED

George: Consider this scenario: There are five people on

a train track and a train is on a collision course for them. The
only way to save them is to switch the track to where another
person is working, killing the one but saving the five. Most
people theoretically choose to save the five over the one in
this situation. Who knows what they would do when
confronted with an actual emergency? [The secret of good
living is to avoid emergencies.]

Larry: One could shout to that worker to dodge out of the

way, so that the switch is not the only way to save him. And
it wouldn’t be ethically wrong if he somehow saved himself,
for a person has the right to do so, even if it leaves the other
five to their fate. A person with a choice cannot be expected
- or forced - to sacrifice himself for a supposed greater
- 41 -
cause. When it happens it is only a gift, not an obligation.
There is nothing moral about sentencing yourself to misery,
just as there is nothing immoral about avoiding it.
You could make the dilemma stricter, George, by phrasing it
this way: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In
its path are five people who have been tied to the track.
Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley
down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a
single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

Ida: And you can make this question even more of a

dilemma by stipulating that the single person is a close
relative of yours, say your son or your daughter.

Ed: Humans are extremely biased, but not aware that they
are. We prefer helping friends and family rather than
strangers. We prefer our own preconceptions over evidence
to the contrary. We prefer generalizations and
categorizations rather than individual exceptions. Ethical
dilemmas help to expose these biases and turn our biases
against us by showing them to be inconsistent or irrational.

George: I believe there is a chance to save a life every

single moment and the fact that we are unaware of this
possibility shows how strong the bias is -- especially in
wealthy, comfortable countries.

Ed: These counterfactual hypotheticals are a game people

play. They have some value in revealing one’s biases but
there are enough factual dilemmas in the real world to
ponder, and hopefully solve, without our having to make
some up. Philosophy serves us by its continuous
clarification and analysis of vague concepts, making them
more precise. While much philosophical discussion does

- 42 -
clarify concepts, much is a pointless exercise in self-
confusion.

This Trolley ‘mind experiment’ may serve to clarify many

students’ thinking; yet more likely it will just confirm biases
they already hold. It’s true that discussions in philosophy –
when done well - can result in an explicit awareness of our
presuppositions, and also can reveal that they may not be
factual or may themselves require rational support. Also
counterfactual hypotheses sometimes can reveal
entailments that we had not realized (ranging from
unintended consequences to logical absurdities.)

Larry: It is a fact that people feel that their loved ones’ lives
are more important, more valuable, than a stranger’s life;
and our ethical system must take that into account. They
judge, and will continue to judge, that in these circumstances
one life is worth many. What if we generalized this
principle for purposes of constructing a good ethical theory?

What if we operated in keeping with the novel premise that

"one person is to be treasured as much as many -- say as
much as one hundred persons"? What kind of world would
we have? Would we continue to wage bloody wars? Would
we then choose to willfully kill a person in the name of any
good cause, such as “to save more”? And how do we ever
know we really will save more?

What if one of the individuals that we save is a serial killer

who commits monstrous crimes and the one we killed was
an innocent who everyone would describe as ‘a good
person.’? What if you had good reason to believe the one
we sacrificed (by switching the onrushing trolley into his
path) would have gone on to invent something that would
have made life more comfortable for millions, say, a superior

- 43 -
design for a city neighborhood that enhanced moral growth
and enabled the people to flourish? Would it make any
difference in your calculations?

Kay: If people are polled currently, many would vote to kill

one to save five. Could they be wrong in their beliefs that
lead to this conclusion? A majority of people in the West
once believed the Earth was flat. Did that make it so? Were
they wrong? So let’s not get 'hung up' on what people do –
or do believe - at present -- as if "50 million individuals" can't
be wrong. Let’s not speak about how people live now, and
what they believe now, as if it's fixed for all time. People
can, and do, change their views, learn new values, and as a
result behavior changes accordingly.

George: To play along with The Trolley Dilemma you

pose, I would make this observation: If you know pulling the
switch will kill one to save five, then you intend to kill one to
save five when you pull the switch. This is an intentional
transgression because you know it is a crime (by Kant's
definition of the term). I have a friend whose name is
Charley. He told me that he would not pull the switch and
that his position is justified on this basis. He would not
commit that crime.

I agree with his stance, which is this: “I do not feel obligated

to save any number of people if it entails committing an
intentional transgression. The omission is but one link in the
chain of causal connection, since, in part, my omission helps
to cause the deaths of five people; but it is misleading to say
that I am the cause of the deaths.

I would assert that the act of commission is worse than the

act of omission in this case.”

- 44 -
He is right, ethically-speaking. What he argues reflects what
he learned from studying Immanuel Kant, METAPHYSICS
OF MORALS. also known as the Grundlagen. This is not
mere opinion; Kant was onto something here that is really
fundamental.

The Unified Theory of Ethics shows that it is wrong to use a

person as a thing, or as a number. To do so is the
commission of an Ethical Fallacy. To deliberately kill a
person (except in immediate direct self-defense) is to commit
an evil: it is the denigration or disvaluation of a person.
Whether it is done by a system, by a thing, or by another
person, it is still wrong.

I would not flip the switch .. If you do nothing, you are simply
letting things happen. If you flip the switch, you are a murderer,
willfully killing the lone person.

Ed: I agree, George, because inaction is not action. To be a

murderer, you must do something. Letting someone die is
not murder. To think otherwise would require condemning all
doctors as murderers who do not always go to extraordinary
lengths to keep someone alive, even if only for another
second. Are the doctors who do not always attempt
resuscitation murderers? Of course not. Yet It is their failure
to act that indirectly results in the death at that time.

Ida: To have a moral obligation to help someone, it must be

possible to do so in a manner that is not objectionable. You
are morally responsible for your decision in every situation
which occurs in your life. But that does not mean you are
responsible for the situations themselves.

Murder, by definition, is the killing of another human being

under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S.,

- 45 -
special statutory definitions include murder committed with
malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or
premeditation or occurring during the commission of another
serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and
murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation
(second-degree murder). In order to murder, one must kill,
and in order to kill, one must act. Inaction is never murder,
though it may be negligence in some cases.

One is responsible for one's actions, and for one's inactions,

insofar as action is possible (which is added because, of
course, one is not responsible for not doing what is
impossible). But the question is, is it right to murder one
person in order to save the lives of five people? The answer
to that question is, "no", it is not right.

George: People are not consistent, and do not make

decisions rationally when it comes to explaining – as the
scenario is given in a variant of the Trolley Dilemma -- what
is different about pushing a big, heavyset man with their own
hands off a footbridge to interfere with an onrushing trolley
versus throwing a switch intentionally which they are sure
will kill a person,, and why they would not do the former but
would do the latter. They cannot give a rational explanation
for their reluctance to act in the former case.

Neurologists, though, have attempted to explain it by

showing that a brain scan during deliberation in the former
case lights up in the lower anterior part of the brain, while
those considering whether to throw a switch to divert the
trolley are calculating with their cerebral cortex. That is the
part of the brain that lights up in their brain scans. People
with brain damage in certain areas of the brain will have no
problem at all with any of those situations, and quickly
decide to kill.

- 46 -
Nick: What if the dilemma were stated in such a way that
the only way to save five people would be by jumping in front
of the train yourself? A lot of people, in theory at least, would
find this acceptable since self-sacrifice is often honored in
society. In Western culture we share a taboo against
directly harming a single individual in any pursuit.
Fortuitously this is in harmony with the Unified Theory of
Ethics we are in the process of constructing.

The problem with the Trolley Dilemma, and its variants, is

that they force us to make an either-or choice. It’s got to be
this or that. No other alternatives. Black or White; no shades
of Gray. Such thinking is Systemic thinking …very limited
and narrow, not at all lifelike. In life there are many
subtleties, many options. As we philosophize here let us not
abandon clear thinking and good reasoning.

Kay: Earlier, George, I heard you once speak of the ethical

enterprise. What did you mean when you used the expression
“the ethical enterprise”?

George: By "the ethical enterprise" I meant: the study and

practice of Ethics. I also meant to include any research done
to expand the theoretical and empirical import (as spoken of
by philosophers of science such as Gustav Hempl) of this
branch of study.

I believe we all do the best we know how. If we knew any

better, we would do better. We are ignorant (of what is in our
best interest; or of what is the best way to behave and to
live.) And if we are not ignorant of what to do, we are
ignorant of how to do it best, or of how to motivate ourselves
to get going doing it.

- 47 -
So once we really know these things, we will know enough
to act on them. And we will be a better people.

It is the task of Ethics to teach us, to dispel this ignorance; to

civilize us, to make us more effective human beings; to make
it clear without question, beyond any doubt, that we are all
one family of brothers and sisters, the human species. Let’s
briefly describe this species.

HOW HUMANS DIFFER FROM OTHER ANIMALS

Nick: According to the findings of the science of Physical

Anthropology humans are animals. We are playful bipeds
who love our games, our sports, and love solving puzzles;
who speak advanced tongues; who write poetry and
compose funky pictures; film movies; who reflect on our own
reflections, who define ourselves,

We have vivid, even over-powering imaginations.5 We can

go insane. We project goals. We have desires, and
principles, and as far as we know (or don’t know) so do other
animals. We do have a talent for putting others into cages
and, at times, for doing incredibly-stupid things for no good
reason.

Humans are distinguished from other animals by our

versatility due to brain size.

Thus we can write, we can use complex speech and evolve

subtle languages. We are capable of expressing abstract,
and at times imaginative, thoughts. Some of these thoughts
result in inventions – both musical and technological.

- 48 -
Other animals do not have the brains for ethics (and at the
moment it seems that many humans don’t either! This, though, can
change in a relatively-short period of time, as education and
instructional techniques become more effective, and as new
generations evolve.)

There is a sector in the architecture of the human brain that

controls the use of our hands. Finger manipulation and the
opposable thumb is lacking in other creatures. We have
also developed more tools - such as, for instance, computer
programs and robots.

Furthermore we have cultural evolution with elaborate rituals

and advanced systems of Mathematics and Logic.

Does all this make us superior to those animals who do not

have these attributes? Hardly. Those of you who have a pet
as part of your family – whether a cat, dog, horse, bird or
hamster - will agree readily that your pet is superior to many
humans you have known.

- 49 -
ON BUSINESS ETHICS

George: Many, if not most, employers believe that they

should treat each employee alike. This is not the ethical
thing to do: Each employee should be treated as unique, and
be given a project and the responsibility for completing it
successfully, with the authority to recruit the necessary
means. This will help them grow, and make their work more
meaningful and interesting to them. This may sound naïve
but it is what some very successful businessmen are already
doing. We should ask the CEO or the small-business owner
if it wouldn't be ideal to develop each member of your staff
so that s/he shows some managerial capacity if at all
capable of it.

Any business that does not give equal emphasis and

attention to its customers, its profit (the shareholders), its
employees, its environment, and to its community is not
being fully ethical. If a business wants to live up to the
standards of ethics, this is what it must do. If business
owners, were clear about this and put it into practice they
would find that maximum value would result.

Ida: Leaders, managers, foundations, and corporations should ask:

How can we design competitions that have a positive effect
on the evolution of excellence?

Also check out the videos and the columns at this link:
http://www.dennisbakke.com/pages/
The experience of this CEO suggests that work can be a joy for some
workers. Learn how he managed to achieve it for so many of his
employees as well as for himself.

- 50 -
THE STRUCTURE OF INTEGRITY

Jerry: Here is another model that can be used in Ethics.

Dr. James Weller has shown that fractal geometry can
partially account for both the concepts: integrity and
refinement.

If we say that 'an individual has integrity' what is implied by

that?

Here is a proposed definition of 'integrity' : a self-similar

value pattern that is morally stable; one that replicates itself
at all levels, in all settings, and across time -- throughout
one's life. …. I believe that’s a pretty-good definition!

Such a pattern Weller tells us is a fractal. And this is

explicated best by the mathematics of fractal geometry.

Here are some links to learn more about fractals:

Fractal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia }

http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/

Dr. Weller has shown that fractals can also explain personal
moral refinement. Here is an excerpt from a recent issue of
The Journal of Formal Axiology:Theory and Practice,
(Volume 2, 2009), p. 142.

"The fractal model" he writes, points to "an endless road of personal

refinement. An individual may quickly sense that it is wrong to kill, but
applying that principle at a new level, he sees that threatening a
person's social life is similar to threatening their physical life, so he
chooses not to slander."

"Later he may become even more refined and acknowledge the harm

- 51 -
that he does to himself by harboring angry fantasies about another.
He is step-by-step turning away from contention and abuse, and
towards attitudes of peace at progressively deeper levels within
himself."

He gives us more details as to where such a model can lead

when he writes:

"By moving the conscious effort away from resisting grossly violent acts
and towards adopting smaller, more peaceful impulses, he builds a
broader barrier between himself and unethical behavior."

He explains that as s/he effects these tiny changes near the core of who
she is, “the resulting pattern of being expands its way back up into her
behavioral life to make largely visible differences ....In other words, while
refining a just lifestyle she is also developing a merciful one."

I, for one, believe this research is highly-relevant to Ethics and

commend it to everyone's attention. Ethicists can build upon
this and carry the research forward. A study of the fractal
geometry when its major terms and relations are interpreted in
terms of ethics (terms such as, for example, altruism or
happiness) may well reveal some hidden relationship which
would not otherwise occur to us.

Finding such logical models and elaborating upon them is how

we are going to make real progress in Ethics. The testable
hypotheses will then follow; the measurements will be made;
and the world will know that Ethics is a body of knowledge
essential to the development of moral health on a massive
scale. What Musicology does for music appreciation, Ethics
does - or will do - for self-improvement.

Larry: Do you recall that premise I recommended earlier?

I suggested: Let’s assume from now on that one person is
as valuable as many are, as even an indefinitely-large
number of others are. (Yes, it is counter-intuitive; but then

- 52 -
so is what biology and physics tells us about our bodies, i.e.,
that we are composed mostly of water; or of swirling electron
clouds that are only probability states. Those are counter-
intuitive but no one seems to mind.)

That assumption that an individual is to be valued as of

uncountably-high worth could have a profound impact on
ethical theory. As a new way of looking at things, it would be
an improvement. Then, when this is taught in the law
schools, the community colleges, the universities, let’s
determine if we – the human family - are all better off than
we were before it was taught.

Living ethically is not just minimizing suffering but is also

exercising the capacity we humans have to put ourselves in
the position of other people, to see things from a broader
perspective than merely thinking of ourselves. As a person
matures he comes to see that his suffering is not more
special than anyone else’s suffering. He acquires the ability
to reason. He does not just think of himself. He is able to
imagine what it’s like for others to be affected by his actions.
He is able to live ethically.

~~~~~~~~~~

- 53 -
 ENDNOTES

(1) It is a known fact that people are bound together by the mores in their
specific culture. Mores are not to be confused with Morality, although too
often it is the case that they are. As I have proposed, in this new paradigm
for ethics, the word "morality” shall refer to the process of living up to an
ideal (such as the description of "the good person" that Mark suggested for
us - on page 21.) Morality means: moral value. And value (valuation) is a
matching process: it means being partially or fully in correspondence (one-
to-one) with the meaning of the concept. As the reader recalls, x is
valuable if it to some degree fulfills the meaning of the concept under
which x falls. If the concept is "a person" then x, the individual, is
designated by a proper name, X. And X can more or less live up to what
he believes a person ought to be. {To fully match up is to be good. x is a
good C when x totally exemplifies C-ness.} Earlier Mark offered a picture of
a possible ideal to help stimulate the imagination. If one has a low ideal for
himself he will not rate high in morality, in the new sense of the term as
employed in the Unified Theory (UT) Thus, if an individual complies with
the model I am proposing, from now on morality means: increasing
correspondence with an improving self-ideal. This is a very dynamic
process because the individual must be increasingly implementing the
ideal; and it must be an improving ideal. That is to say, such a person
wants to be reaching higher. One then prefers to not get into a rut, but
would instead prefer to learn and to grow morally.

(2) Q: To ask the meaning of something is to ask what...?

A: It can indicate: What is your intention? What is your motivation? What

does that connote?
One way to pin down "meaning" so that it is amenable to Logic and to Set
Theory is to say it will refer to a set of descriptive adjectives (predicates) or
to a definition (which is a finite set of predicates). Often when one asks
"What do you mean?" offering a definition of your terms, rephrasing what
you said, or giving an itemization or a description will satisfy the inquirer.
This is the approach we shall utilize here, as we construct a unified theory
of ethics. Some say 'Meanings are caught, not taught.' This implies that to
comprehend the meaning of what another says, we must both "resonate on
the same frequency." To A. N. Whitehead, in his book on process
philosophy, PROCESS AND REALITY (N.Y., Macmillan, 1929) it was best to
refer to meanings as "prehensions." This neologism refers to
apprehension by the senses, or total comprehension.

- 54 -
 (3) Technical note: The basic value dimensions which can be
differentiated on the values spectrum – similar to the various visible light
colors that can be discerned on the electromagnetic spectrum. {The
radiation beams are said to be “tangible” while values are well-known
intangible entities. Yet both are measurable.} I-value is richer in meaning
than E-value, and E-value is richer in meaning than S-value. Each
dimension ha, by definition, s a measure (a size, a cardinality) which tells
the number of predicates that define the dimension: for Intrinsic Value it is
the power of the continuum; for Extrinsic Value it is the size of the integers;
and Systemic Values are finite, but elastic in size. For more detail and a
lucid explanation, see the paper "Axiology as a Science" by R. S. Hartman,
http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/html/AxiologyAsAScience.html

(4) In the following table the reader will find applications of the basic value types
and the definitions that are generated as a result. Robert S. Hartman, Ph.D.
suggested many of these definitions to me. They result from the application of the
value dimensions to some basic categories. When applied, those value
dimensions yield new definitions, such as, for example, “possibility” is “the
Systemic valuation of process.” Or “causality: is “Extrinsic succession.” “Poetry”
is “the Intrinsic valuation of words.” “Music” (not listed in the table below) is
“Intrinsically-valued sound.” “Nationalism” is Extrinsic patriotism. Etc.

SYSTEMIC EXTRINSIC INTRINSIC

VALUE VALUE VALUE
truth validity Objectivity compenetration
(coherence) (correspondence) (The Truth)
Kierkegaard, Hegel,
Bergson, Bradley
self self importance self esteem self respect
recognition (neurosis)
chaos confusion destruction indifference (to
an intrinsic
value)
Being essence existence reality
Plato, Bradley, Hegel
time linear time chronology eschatology
(coordinate (clock and (eternity)
system time) calendar time) (duration) (The
(space ÷ (past, present, fullness of time)
velocity) future)
space mathematical aeronautical, paradise
space and geographical
space
succession deduction causality growth
complete perfection goodness uniqueness
value (Perfect) (Good) (Unique)

- 55 -
process possibility probability creativity (love)
(appreciation)
knowledge formal and observational, insight, intuition,
technical empirical, empathy, satori,
objective and deja vu,
subjective clairvoyance
relevance significance meaningfulness importance
(vitality)
entities universals particulars individuals
(generalities)
gratification satisfaction pleasure joy
justice equal treatment compensation; rehabilitation
under law equity (reconciliation)
(equality)
patriotism chauvinism nationalism universalism
(world
citizenship)
affects (i.e., conception perception experience
internal (mind) (senses) (openness to
facts) inner life) (self)
(individuality)
thinking memory apperception awareness
anticipation planning expectancy hope
relationship dependence independence interdependence
modes of casual familiarization involvement
knowing acquaintance
social uniformity and individualism individuality
pattern conformity
energy in mind matter spirit
motion
recursion History of Ideas Material Theology
(recursive Progress
functions)
Theology Systematic Comparative Gestalt
Theology World Religions Psychology of
Religion; Study
of Mystic
Experiences;
Worship;
Existential
Encounter with
Creativity.

- 56 -
belief ideology conviction faith
pattern
loyalty to the state or to social to the conscience
system pressure
international international expediency interpersonal
relations law fellowship
world of maps and of senses of organic unities
formulas (ends in
themselves)
(highest values)
plurality of all identical, multiplicity maximum of
elements (or replaceable, variety-in-unity
parts) interchangeable
universe as viewed by as viewed by as viewed by
Spinoza Leibniz Goethe
mode of consist exist persist (abide)
subsistence
language technical social private
(formal) conversational (personal)
metaphorical
words lexicography, philology, poetry
grammar rhetoric,
semantics
commitment loyalty devotion faithfulness and
consecration
human society collectivity community
group (family spirit)
personality conformist politician realist-idealist
type (dreamer) (optimist, unique
(pessimist) individual)
(neurotic)
athletics coaching exercise sport
love benevolence sex true love,
and charity understanding
and commitment
(philia) (eros) (agape)
sciences of physiology and psychology ethics
individual anatomy
persons
the universe symbolic ordinary I and Thou (the
(scientific) (everyday) entity valued is
(theoretic) the whole
universe

- 57 -
the nature of valid objective and absolute (Cf.
knowledge subjective Ramanuja, F.H.
Bradley,
Bergson, etc.)

(5) Rick Ringel, a computer-lab Director, suggests that human individuals

are not so much self-contradictory (which they often appear to be) as they
are complex. He explains that some of the tools that Complexity theorists
use are appropriate for Ethics, especially for the Self-Concept and its
accompanying Self-Image. By a model derived from that theory it is
possible to conclude that the easiest way to overcome a bad habit – or
even a bad character trait -- is through new circumstances, rather than
attempting to change that behavior in the existing environment. In other
words, Chaos Theory when applied to these concerns indicates that we
can chip away at our vices by bringing good habits into environments that
get incrementally more similar to the problem environment.. Some
examples are offered in the booklet,, written by the current author, entitled
Living the Good Life. There further details may be found. Ringel further
informs us that among other breakthroughs in the field of self-improvement
research, a branch of math called Non-linear Dynamic Equations can be
used to account for the multiple roles we play in life, the many faces we
present to others, what psychologists would call our "multiple selves." All
of these variable selves combine to be equivalent to our one Self-Concept.

- 58 -